[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrVmczve=knhYGrcXkeAXRQR_oY4ac2BSc7V0TEnx6-GFA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 09:52:18 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Roman Pen <roman.penyaev@...fitbricks.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] kthread: allocate kthread structure using kmalloc
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 8:43 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 10/25, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>
>> On 10/25, Roman Pen wrote:
>> >
>> > This patch avoids allocation of kthread structure on a stack, and simply
>> > uses kmalloc.
>>
>> Oh. I didn't even read this patch, but I have to admit I personally do not
>> like it. I can be wrong, but imo this is the step to the wrong direction.
>
> And after I tried to actually read it I dislike it even more, sorry Roman.
> Starting from the fact it moves kthread_create_info into struct kthread.
Would it perhaps make sense to do something like Roman's patch for 4.9
and then consider further changes down the road? Roman's patch
appears to fix a real bug, and I think that, while not really ideal,
the code is an incredible mess right now and Roman's patch (assuming
it's correct) makes it considerably nicer.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists